Share:

A former contributor to World Intelligence (Japan Military Review), James Simpson joined Japan Security Watch in 2011, migrating with his blog Defending Japan. He has a Masters in Security Studies from Aberystwyth University and is currently living in Kawasaki, Japan.
His primary interests include the so-called 'normalization' of Japanese security (i.e. militarization), and the political impact of the abduction issue with North Korea.
James Simpson has 254 post(s) on Japan Security Watch

Suffice to say, there is an awful lot of metal belonging to these countries floating around the Sea of Japan and South China Sea.

The bottom line is that as far as a Japan/South Korea clash is concerned, SK would most likely be decimated by a far superior Japanese naval force (10 vs 1 Destroyers, 36 vs 9 Frigates). At present South Korea’s navy is aimed primarily at white-water operations around the pennisula and would take years (and a massive budget) to reconfigure itself to pose a viable threat to Japan).

In the case of China, Japan would be severely outnumbered in every category of vessel. Yet, Japan’s ships are of far higher calibre than the largely outdated Chinese fleet and her crews (apart from China’s elite blue water fleet) more highly trained. China is also required to spread its vessels across the entire region to reinforce the many territorial claims it is making with other nations. These claims (and her standing alliance relationships) also ensure Japan could call upon wide support in the event of a crisis while China would stand alone. At present the two seem evenly matched.

The most important point, however, is that any clash in the near future would not resolve a thing. Tensions would be increase, emotions would be inflamed, another grudge marked down for the ages, and the underlying issue would in no way be resolved. There is nothing of strategic consequence to be gained by a clash, making the real danger the fact that political gains can be made by statesmen willing to sacrifice their country’s national security for their own personal gain. For the sake of clarity, such politicians (in any country) should not be called a ‘nationalist’ as they are not putting their nation’s interest before their own and are almost certainly feigning any patriotic outrage they display in their demagoguery.

I feel rather ambiguous when I read such a statement. On the one hand, it makes sense. On the other hand, sovereignty is ultimately a digital proposition and does not lend itself well to rational compromise. And every day it is unresolved also increases tensions, inflames emotions, grudges…

The only way these disputes can be settled, even on paper, is to create a one-sided crisis so serious the other side starts thinking the short term advantages to ending it is large enough to ignore the long term advantage of continuing the dispute. Once it is on paper the loser has to pay it some heed.

To put it in a mean way, I think China quickly made up with Russia over the border because they need to buy Su-27s to modernize their air force. Now, what large enticement, good or bad, can Japan make to get China to do the same?